Opinion

Covington v. N.C. of Correction

Court
North Carolina Industrial Commission
Filed
Feb 6, 2007
Status
Published
On the bench
<center> DECISION AND ORDER by BUCK LATTIMORE, Chairman, and DISSENT by THOMAS J. BOLCH, Commissioner, N.C. Industrial Commission.</center>
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 42.3%

The opinion

I respectfully dissent from the Decision and Order of the majority. In particular, I believe that the majority has erred in its conclusion that District Attorneys' Offices are not State agencies.

Contrary to the majority's findings of fact, Covington's Tort Claim Affidavit did not name the "Columbus County District Attorney's Office," but instead alleged negligence by two Assistant District Attorneys, "13 th Judicial District, Columbus County." Indeed, in accordance with Covington's pleading, District Attorneys' Offices are not established by local county, as implied by the majority's decision, but by State Prosecutorial District. Because North Carolina's Prosecutorial Districts map closely to its Judicial Districts, I believe that Covington's confusion on that distinction is excusable.

In Caudill v. Dellinger , 129 N.C.App. 649 , 501 S.E.2d 99 (1998), aff'd , 350 N.C. 89 , 511 S.E.2d 304 (1999), the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that District Attorneys are State employees for the purpose of the North Carolina Whistleblower Act. It follows that District Attorneys' Offices in general, and the District Attorney's Office for the 13 th Prosecutorial District of North Carolina in particular, is a department, institution, or agency of the State.

Hull v. Oldham , 104 N.C. App. 29 , 407 S.E.2d 611 , disc. review denied , 330 N.C. 441 , 412 S.E.2d 72 (1991), cited by defendant in its arguments before the Industrial Commission, holds that county sheriffs are not State employees subject to suit under the Tort Claims Act because, although the position of sheriff is established under the State Constitution, it is *Page 5

described under Article VII, "Local Government." That case is therefore distinguishable from the present case, as the position of District Attorney is established under the State Constitution under Article IV, "Judicial," together with the rest of the state judiciary.

Because Covington has properly named a department, institution, or agency of the State as defendant in his Tort Claim Affidavit pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-297 , I would allow Covington's tort action to proceed and correct the caption of the present action to properly reflect Defendant's identity.

For the reasons stated herein, I respectfully dissent.

This the 6th day of February, 2007.

S/___________________ THOMAS J. BOLCH COMMISSIONER

*Page 1

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.